76-Siberia.Pdf

Precambrian Research 281 (2016) 639–655 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Precambrian Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/precamres Paleomagnetism of Mesoproterozoic margins of the Anabar Shield: A hypothesized billion-year partnership of Siberia and northern Laurentia ⇑ David A.D. Evans a, , Roman V. Veselovsky b,c, Peter Yu. Petrov d, Andrey V. Shatsillo b, Vladimir E. Pavlov b,e a Department of Geology & Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, USA b Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia c Geological Department, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia d Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia e Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia article info abstract Article history: Siberia and Laurentia have been suggested as near neighbors in Proterozoic supercontinents Nuna and Received 5 February 2016 Rodinia, but paleomagnetic evidence has been sparse and ambiguous. Here we present four new paleo- Revised 23 May 2016 magnetic poles from undeformed Paleo-Mesoproterozoic (lower Riphean) sedimentary rocks and mafic Accepted 12 June 2016 intrusions of the northwestern Anabar uplift in northern Siberia. Combining these results with other Available online 17 June 2016 Proterozoic data from Siberia and Laurentia, we propose a tight juxtaposition of those two blocks (Euler parameters 77°, 098°, 137° for Anabar to North America) spanning the interval 1.7–0.7 Ga, consti- Keywords: tuting a long-lived connection that outlasted both the Nuna and Rodinia supercontinental assemblages. Siberia Ó 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Anabar Riphean Paleomagnetism Nuna Rodinia 1. Introduction two cratons were separated by several thousand km (Pisarevsky and Natapov, 2003; Pisarevsky et al., 2008) or tight (Pavlov et al., Proterozoic continental reconstructions are crucial for under- 2002; Metelkin et al., 2007; Evans and Mitchell, 2011). The standing long-term Earth history, but their development has loose-fit hypothesis is inspired primarily due to a perceived incon- occurred over decades with some major components yet unre- gruity between 1.1 and 1.0 Ga poles from the two cratons, but as solved, including precise configurations of the supercontinents will be described further, such a conclusion rests on ages of Siber- Nuna and Rodinia (reviewed by Evans, 2013). Paleomagnetic data ian sedimentary strata with rather poor constraints. Evans and are an integral component of such reconstructions, but the Protero- Mitchell (2011) proposed the two cratons to be tightly joined in zoic database has been dominated by results from Laurentia and Nuna but separating through the interval 1.38–1.27 Ga—the era Baltica (Buchan, 2013). The present study addresses reconstruction of numerous mafic intrusive events throughout Laurentia, Siberia, of Siberia, one of the major Proterozoic cratons. Siberia’s paleogeo- and neighboring Baltica—to achieve the more distant relative posi- graphic relationship to Laurentia has been contentious, with juxta- tion apparently required by the 1.1–1.0 Ga poles. Nonetheless, the positions ranging from Laurentia’s western margin (Sears and matching LIP ‘‘barcode” record spanning 1.7–0.7 Ga from Laurentia Price, 1978, 2000, 2003) to its northern margin in a variety of and Siberia (Gladkochub et al., 2010a; Ernst et al., 2016a) may orientations (Hoffman, 1991; Condie and Rosen, 1994; Frost alternatively suggest a tight fit between the two blocks enduring et al., 1998; Rainbird et al., 1998). as late as 0.7 Ga. A relative lull in tectonic activity or sedimentary In the past 15 years, paleomagnetic data have strongly sup- record (e.g. passive margins) in southern Siberia throughout that ported a mid-Proterozoic location of Siberia near Laurentia’s north- interval could also suggest that margin’s location within a conti- ern margin, such that southern Siberia faced northern Laurentia nental interior (Gladkochub et al., 2010b). It is more difficult to (Gallet et al., 2000; Ernst et al., 2000; Pavlov et al., 2002; apply the same test to northern Laurentia, because that margin is Metelkin et al., 2007; Wingate et al., 2009; Didenko et al., 2009). largely covered by Phanerozoic strata (e.g., Kerr, 1982). An unresolved issue is whether such a fit is loose, in which the The purpose of this paper is to report new paleomagnetic data from nearly pristine igneous and sedimentary rocks of the Anabar uplift in northern Siberia, to assess the aggregate paleomagnetic ⇑ Corresponding author. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2016.06.017 0301-9268/Ó 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 640 D.A.D. Evans et al. / Precambrian Research 281 (2016) 639–655 record of Siberia and Laurentia in Proterozoic time, and to propose ingly compelling paleomagnetic evidence for a 20–25° relative a new, static configuration between the two blocks that honors rotation between the Anabar and Aldan blocks during Devonian both the geologic and paleomagnetic datasets. Preliminary data formation of the Vilyuy rift system (Pavlov and Petrov, 1997; from some of the sites described herein were reported by Smethurst et al., 1998; Gallet et al., 2000; Pavlov et al., 2008). Aside Veselovskiy et al. (2009), but our present contribution supersedes from this deformation, the Siberian cratonic interior has remained the western and northern Anabar datasets reported in that earlier tectonically stable other than emplacement of Devonian-Triassic paper. kimberlites and the particularly voluminous Permian–Triassic ‘‘traps” (largely mafic, both extrusive and intrusive; Nikishin 2. Geologic setting et al., 2010). The Anabar uplift, which is the study area of this work, is a The Siberian craton, which assembled at about 1900 Ma (Rosen, broad cratonic arch with Paleoproterozoic crystalline basement 2003), is largely covered by Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks. Pre- (shield) encircled by nonconformably overlying, nearly horizontal cambrian rocks, both crystalline and sedimentary, are exposed and regionally unmetamorphosed, Paleo-Mesoproterozoic sedi- around the craton’s margins as well as two shield areas or uplifts: mentary rocks (Fig. 1). The sedimentary succession begins with Anabar in the northwest, and Aldan in the southeast (Fig. 1). Both clastic strata of the Mukun Group, transitioning upsection to car- shield areas (i.e., exposed crystalline basement) are mantled by bonates of the Billyakh Group (Figs. 1 and 2). The lowest clastic lay- sedimentary cover and inferred to represent larger, internally ers contain detrital zircons as young as 1681 ± 28 Ma (n =8; coherent blocks. Whereas the Aldan block exposes much of its Khudoley et al., 2015), providing a maximum constraint for the pre-Phanerozoic basement architecture, the Anabar block is almost onset of sedimentation. Mafic sills intrude the stratigraphy at sev- entirely covered. In the north-central Anabar block, a gentle domal eral levels, and there are numerous mafic dykes as well. The most uplift exposes the Anabar Shield and an annular ring of Mesopro- common ages for dated intrusions are ca. 1500–1470 Ma (reviewed terozoic (Riphean) sedimentary rocks that are invaded by numer- by Gladkochub et al., 2010a; new data presented in Ernst et al., ous mafic intrusions. Geophysical surveys (e.g., Rosen et al., 2016b), the latter figure being shared by mafic magmatism in the 1994) extend the inferred basement architecture of the Anabar Olenëk uplift about 600 km to the east (Wingate et al., 2009); block beyond its uplifted shield regions, under its sedimentary but many Anabar intrusions are suspected to be related to the Per- cover (also described by Pisarevsky et al., 2008). There is increas- mian–Triassic traps (Bogdanov et al., 1998). Fig. 1. Regional map of Siberian craton (A), highlighting the location of Anabar Shield study areas (B, C). Paleomagnetic sampling sites are color-coded according to characteristic remanent magnetization (ChRM) group. Filled = normal polarity, open = reversed polarity. D.A.D. Evans et al. / Precambrian Research 281 (2016) 639–655 641 The measurements were made using a 2G-Enterprise cryogenic magnetometer (Paris, Yale), and an AGICO JR-6 spinner magnetometer (Moscow); heating was done in homemade non-magnetic ovens (Paris), a MMTD-80 (Magnetic Measurements Ltd.) thermal demagnetizer (Moscow), and a TD-48 (ASC Scientific) thermal demagnetizer (Yale). Some specimens were pre-treated by low-temperature immersion in liquid nitrogen to remove multi- domain magnetic components (Borradaile et al., 2004), but we found that such procedure had little effect on the quality of data acquired during the subsequent high-temperature demagnetiza- tion. Directional data were fit in almost all cases with least- squares lines, but occasionally least-squares planes or great circles, according to routines developed by Kirschvink (1980) and Enkin (1994). Reconstructions were made using the GPlates freeware package (Williams et al., 2012). 4. Results About half of the samples yielded well resolved components of the NRM (Table 1). Most of those samples contained only one or two components (Figs. 3–6), with one clearly defined characteristic remanence magnetization (ChRM). Within the sedimentary rocks distant to mapped intrusions, which were red-colored, unblocking temperatures extend as high as 680 °C, indicating near-stoichiometric hematite as the remanence carrier (Fig. 3). Within mafic rocks, unblocking temperatures extend as high as 580 °C, indicating low-Ti titanomagnetite as the carrier (Figs. 4–6). Some mafic specimens display two components

Load more